Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1401 | control, N = 711 | treatment, N = 691 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 138 | 50.91 ± 12.56 (25 - 74) | 51.44 ± 12.37 (25 - 74) | 50.37 ± 12.82 (28 - 73) | 0.620 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 140 | 0.916 | |||
f | 107 (76%) | 54 (76%) | 53 (77%) | ||
m | 33 (24%) | 17 (24%) | 16 (23%) | ||
occupation | 140 | 0.641 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.4%) | 2 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 17 (12%) | 8 (11%) | 9 (13%) | ||
homemaker | 12 (8.6%) | 5 (7.0%) | 7 (10%) | ||
other | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
part_time | 25 (18%) | 12 (17%) | 13 (19%) | ||
retired | 38 (27%) | 19 (27%) | 19 (28%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (5.0%) | 4 (5.6%) | 3 (4.3%) | ||
student | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
unemploy | 33 (24%) | 20 (28%) | 13 (19%) | ||
marital | 140 | 0.817 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
divore | 15 (11%) | 10 (14%) | 5 (7.2%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
married | 39 (28%) | 20 (28%) | 19 (28%) | ||
none | 70 (50%) | 33 (46%) | 37 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.1%) | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
widow | 8 (5.7%) | 4 (5.6%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
edu | 140 | 0.249 | |||
bachelor | 35 (25%) | 13 (18%) | 22 (32%) | ||
diploma | 26 (19%) | 17 (24%) | 9 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 4 (2.9%) | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 12 (8.6%) | 5 (7.0%) | 7 (10%) | ||
primary | 9 (6.4%) | 3 (4.2%) | 6 (8.7%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 16 (11%) | 9 (13%) | 7 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 32 (23%) | 19 (27%) | 13 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 6 (4.3%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
fam_income | 140 | 0.981 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.3%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
12001_14000 | 7 (5.0%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
14001_16000 | 7 (5.0%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 6 (4.3%) | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
20001_above | 27 (19%) | 15 (21%) | 12 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 20 (14%) | 11 (15%) | 9 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 14 (10%) | 6 (8.5%) | 8 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 12 (8.6%) | 7 (9.9%) | 5 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 10 (7.1%) | 4 (5.6%) | 6 (8.7%) | ||
below_2000 | 27 (19%) | 14 (20%) | 13 (19%) | ||
medication | 140 | 123 (88%) | 62 (87%) | 61 (88%) | 0.845 |
onset_duration | 137 | 15.23 ± 10.25 (0 - 56) | 15.87 ± 10.92 (0 - 56) | 14.55 ± 9.51 (0 - 35) | 0.452 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 135 | 35.90 ± 13.95 (10 - 65) | 35.40 ± 12.70 (10 - 61) | 36.42 ± 15.23 (14 - 65) | 0.673 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1401 | control, N = 711 | treatment, N = 691 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 140 | 3.20 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 3.27 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.12 (1 - 5) | 0.492 |
recovery_stage_b | 140 | 17.97 ± 2.78 (8 - 24) | 17.90 ± 2.93 (8 - 24) | 18.04 ± 2.64 (13 - 24) | 0.764 |
ras_confidence | 140 | 30.03 ± 5.14 (15 - 45) | 29.83 ± 4.88 (15 - 40) | 30.23 ± 5.42 (18 - 45) | 0.646 |
ras_willingness | 140 | 11.79 ± 2.09 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.07 (5 - 15) | 11.93 ± 2.12 (7 - 15) | 0.455 |
ras_goal | 140 | 17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25) | 17.14 ± 2.89 (11 - 24) | 17.64 ± 3.28 (11 - 25) | 0.343 |
ras_reliance | 140 | 13.20 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 12.99 ± 2.81 (5 - 18) | 13.42 ± 3.08 (7 - 20) | 0.385 |
ras_domination | 140 | 9.92 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 10.17 ± 2.32 (3 - 15) | 9.67 ± 2.51 (3 - 15) | 0.221 |
symptom | 139 | 29.94 ± 9.39 (14 - 56) | 29.93 ± 9.61 (14 - 55) | 29.94 ± 9.23 (15 - 56) | 0.994 |
Unknown | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
slof_work | 140 | 22.51 ± 4.78 (10 - 30) | 22.85 ± 4.38 (13 - 30) | 22.17 ± 5.16 (10 - 30) | 0.408 |
slof_relationship | 140 | 25.20 ± 6.03 (9 - 35) | 24.90 ± 6.05 (9 - 35) | 25.51 ± 6.05 (11 - 35) | 0.555 |
satisfaction | 140 | 20.58 ± 7.23 (5 - 35) | 19.99 ± 6.80 (5 - 33) | 21.19 ± 7.65 (5 - 35) | 0.327 |
mhc_emotional | 140 | 10.94 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.69 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.20 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 0.428 |
mhc_social | 140 | 15.08 ± 5.61 (5 - 30) | 14.75 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 15.42 ± 5.66 (5 - 29) | 0.480 |
mhc_psychological | 140 | 21.94 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 21.80 ± 6.11 (7 - 36) | 22.09 ± 6.88 (6 - 36) | 0.796 |
resilisnce | 140 | 16.69 ± 4.72 (6 - 30) | 16.25 ± 4.20 (6 - 24) | 17.13 ± 5.20 (6 - 30) | 0.274 |
social_provision | 140 | 13.56 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.11 ± 2.65 (5 - 20) | 14.03 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 0.060 |
els_value_living | 140 | 16.96 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.59 ± 2.94 (6 - 22) | 17.35 ± 3.37 (5 - 25) | 0.159 |
els_life_fulfill | 140 | 12.75 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 12.37 ± 3.28 (5 - 19) | 13.14 ± 3.59 (4 - 20) | 0.182 |
els | 140 | 29.71 ± 6.01 (9 - 45) | 28.96 ± 5.53 (11 - 38) | 30.49 ± 6.42 (9 - 45) | 0.131 |
social_connect | 140 | 26.46 ± 9.51 (8 - 48) | 26.73 ± 9.24 (8 - 48) | 26.19 ± 9.84 (8 - 48) | 0.736 |
shs_agency | 140 | 14.36 ± 5.17 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 14.77 ± 5.57 (3 - 24) | 0.365 |
shs_pathway | 140 | 16.06 ± 4.06 (4 - 24) | 15.75 ± 3.87 (5 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.25 (4 - 24) | 0.349 |
shs | 140 | 30.43 ± 8.84 (7 - 48) | 29.72 ± 8.27 (8 - 45) | 31.16 ± 9.40 (7 - 48) | 0.337 |
esteem | 140 | 12.61 ± 1.65 (9 - 20) | 12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.58 ± 1.68 (10 - 20) | 0.808 |
mlq_search | 140 | 14.84 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 14.70 ± 3.32 (6 - 21) | 14.97 ± 3.74 (3 - 21) | 0.656 |
mlq_presence | 140 | 13.51 ± 4.21 (3 - 21) | 13.38 ± 3.80 (4 - 21) | 13.65 ± 4.63 (3 - 21) | 0.704 |
mlq | 140 | 28.35 ± 6.94 (6 - 42) | 28.08 ± 6.26 (10 - 40) | 28.62 ± 7.61 (6 - 42) | 0.648 |
empower | 140 | 19.29 ± 4.28 (6 - 30) | 18.97 ± 4.17 (11 - 30) | 19.61 ± 4.40 (6 - 30) | 0.380 |
ismi_resistance | 140 | 14.55 ± 2.53 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.21 (10 - 20) | 14.62 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.737 |
ismi_discrimation | 140 | 11.59 ± 3.15 (5 - 20) | 11.96 ± 3.02 (5 - 20) | 11.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.165 |
sss_affective | 140 | 9.92 ± 3.55 (3 - 18) | 10.03 ± 3.51 (3 - 18) | 9.81 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 0.719 |
sss_behavior | 140 | 9.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 9.89 ± 3.85 (3 - 18) | 9.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 0.480 |
sss_cognitive | 140 | 8.19 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 8.24 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 8.14 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 0.882 |
sss | 140 | 27.78 ± 10.21 (9 - 54) | 28.15 ± 10.26 (9 - 54) | 27.39 ± 10.22 (9 - 54) | 0.660 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.27 | 0.137 | 3.00, 3.54 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.137 | 0.195 | -0.519, 0.245 | 0.483 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.058 | 0.234 | -0.402, 0.517 | 0.806 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.437 | 0.334 | -0.218, 1.09 | 0.194 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.340 | 17.2, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.142 | 0.484 | -0.807, 1.09 | 0.770 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.306 | 0.541 | -1.37, 0.755 | 0.574 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.728 | 0.773 | -0.787, 2.24 | 0.349 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.619 | 28.6, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.401 | 0.881 | -1.33, 2.13 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.766 | 0.754 | -0.712, 2.24 | 0.314 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.05 | 1.077 | -1.06, 3.16 | 0.333 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.249 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.266 | 0.354 | -0.428, 0.959 | 0.454 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.581 | 0.300 | -1.17, 0.006 | 0.057 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.789 | 0.428 | -0.049, 1.63 | 0.070 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.1 | 0.375 | 16.4, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.497 | 0.535 | -0.551, 1.54 | 0.354 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.363 | 0.495 | -1.33, 0.607 | 0.466 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.47 | 0.707 | 0.085, 2.86 | 0.041 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.348 | 12.3, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.434 | 0.495 | -0.536, 1.40 | 0.382 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.395 | 0.406 | -0.400, 1.19 | 0.334 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.984 | 0.579 | -0.151, 2.12 | 0.094 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.281 | 9.62, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.502 | 0.400 | -1.29, 0.282 | 0.211 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.242 | 0.427 | -1.08, 0.596 | 0.574 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.35 | 0.610 | 0.152, 2.54 | 0.031 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.117 | 27.7, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.012 | 1.597 | -3.12, 3.14 | 0.994 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.121 | 1.087 | -2.25, 2.01 | 0.912 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.43 | 1.552 | -4.47, 1.61 | 0.360 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.565 | 21.7, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.671 | 0.805 | -2.25, 0.906 | 0.405 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.309 | 0.654 | -1.59, 0.972 | 0.638 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.425 | 0.933 | -1.40, 2.25 | 0.650 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.712 | 23.5, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.606 | 1.015 | -1.38, 2.59 | 0.551 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.15 | 0.774 | -2.67, 0.368 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.94 | 1.106 | -0.231, 4.10 | 0.085 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.0 | 0.863 | 18.3, 21.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.20 | 1.229 | -1.21, 3.61 | 0.329 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.601 | 1.073 | -1.50, 2.70 | 0.577 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.534 | 1.532 | -2.47, 3.54 | 0.729 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.449 | 9.81, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.640 | -0.741, 1.77 | 0.424 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.386 | 0.503 | -0.599, 1.37 | 0.445 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.204 | 0.718 | -1.61, 1.20 | 0.777 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.682 | 13.4, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.674 | 0.971 | -1.23, 2.58 | 0.489 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.731 | 0.872 | -0.979, 2.44 | 0.405 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.502 | 1.245 | -2.94, 1.94 | 0.688 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.791 | 20.3, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.284 | 1.127 | -1.93, 2.49 | 0.801 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.697 | 0.985 | -1.23, 2.63 | 0.482 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.017 | 1.406 | -2.74, 2.77 | 0.990 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.550 | 15.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.877 | 0.783 | -0.657, 2.41 | 0.264 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.136 | 0.713 | -1.26, 1.53 | 0.850 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.46 | 1.018 | -0.539, 3.45 | 0.158 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.344 | 12.4, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.916 | 0.490 | -0.043, 1.88 | 0.063 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.519 | 0.468 | -1.44, 0.398 | 0.271 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.692 | 0.667 | -0.616, 2.00 | 0.303 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.379 | 15.8, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.756 | 0.540 | -0.302, 1.81 | 0.163 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.263 | 0.484 | -0.685, 1.21 | 0.589 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.265 | 0.690 | -1.09, 1.62 | 0.702 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.402 | 11.6, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.779 | 0.573 | -0.344, 1.90 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.544 | 0.410 | -0.260, 1.35 | 0.190 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.195 | 0.586 | -1.34, 0.953 | 0.740 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 0.713 | 27.6, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.54 | 1.016 | -0.456, 3.53 | 0.133 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.774 | 0.749 | -0.694, 2.24 | 0.306 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.089 | 1.069 | -2.01, 2.18 | 0.934 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.7 | 1.141 | 24.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.544 | 1.626 | -3.73, 2.64 | 0.738 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.32 | 1.218 | -1.07, 3.70 | 0.284 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.84 | 1.739 | -7.25, -0.431 | 0.031 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.612 | 12.8, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.796 | 0.872 | -0.913, 2.51 | 0.363 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.080 | 0.682 | -1.26, 1.42 | 0.907 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.796 | 0.973 | -1.11, 2.70 | 0.416 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.477 | 14.8, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.645 | 0.680 | -0.688, 1.98 | 0.344 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.194 | 0.527 | -0.840, 1.23 | 0.715 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.030 | 0.753 | -1.51, 1.44 | 0.968 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.041 | 27.7, 31.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.44 | 1.483 | -1.47, 4.35 | 0.333 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.273 | 1.107 | -1.90, 2.44 | 0.806 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.747 | 1.580 | -2.35, 3.84 | 0.638 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.184 | 12.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.068 | 0.262 | -0.583, 0.446 | 0.795 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.049 | 0.305 | -0.548, 0.647 | 0.872 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.118 | 0.435 | -0.735, 0.971 | 0.788 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.413 | 13.9, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.267 | 0.589 | -0.887, 1.42 | 0.651 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.162 | 0.595 | -1.00, 1.33 | 0.786 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.207 | 0.850 | -1.87, 1.46 | 0.808 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.497 | 12.4, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.272 | 0.708 | -1.12, 1.66 | 0.702 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.249 | 0.632 | -0.990, 1.49 | 0.695 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.041 | 0.903 | -1.73, 1.81 | 0.964 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.824 | 26.5, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.539 | 1.174 | -1.76, 2.84 | 0.647 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.418 | 1.089 | -1.72, 2.55 | 0.703 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.152 | 1.555 | -3.20, 2.90 | 0.922 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.509 | 18.0, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.637 | 0.725 | -0.783, 2.06 | 0.381 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.178 | 0.548 | -0.897, 1.25 | 0.747 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.446 | 0.783 | -1.98, 1.09 | 0.571 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.296 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.144 | 0.422 | -0.683, 0.972 | 0.733 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.015 | 0.448 | -0.894, 0.863 | 0.973 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.494 | 0.640 | -0.760, 1.75 | 0.442 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.375 | 11.2, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.740 | 0.534 | -1.79, 0.307 | 0.168 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.352 | 0.459 | -1.25, 0.547 | 0.446 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.272 | 0.655 | -1.01, 1.55 | 0.680 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.416 | 9.21, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.217 | 0.592 | -1.38, 0.944 | 0.715 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.161 | 0.496 | -0.811, 1.13 | 0.746 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.21 | 0.708 | -2.60, 0.173 | 0.091 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.89 | 0.442 | 9.02, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.453 | 0.629 | -1.69, 0.780 | 0.473 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.012 | 0.537 | -1.06, 1.04 | 0.982 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.730 | 0.766 | -2.23, 0.771 | 0.344 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.24 | 0.441 | 7.38, 9.10 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.095 | 0.627 | -1.32, 1.14 | 0.880 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.705 | 0.523 | -0.320, 1.73 | 0.182 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.40 | 0.747 | -2.86, 0.064 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.204 | 25.8, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.764 | 1.715 | -4.12, 2.60 | 0.657 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.793 | 1.322 | -1.80, 3.38 | 0.551 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.18 | 1.887 | -6.88, 0.523 | 0.097 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.27 (95% CI [3.00, 3.54], t(187) = 23.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.25], t(187) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52], t(187) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.09], t(187) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.90 (95% CI [17.24, 18.57], t(187) = 52.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.09], t(187) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.76], t(187) = -0.56, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.24], t(187) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.62, 31.04], t(187) = 48.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.13], t(187) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.24], t(187) = 1.02, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.16], t(187) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.66 (95% CI [11.17, 12.15], t(187) = 46.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.96], t(187) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.17, 6.06e-03], t(187) = -1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.91e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.63], t(187) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.78])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [16.41, 17.88], t(187) = 45.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.54], t(187) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.61], t(187) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [0.08, 2.86], t(187) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.03, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.30, 13.67], t(187) = 37.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.40], t(187) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.19], t(187) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.12], t(187) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.62, 10.72], t(187) = 36.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.28], t(187) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.60], t(187) = -0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [0.15, 2.54], t(187) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.06, 1.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.93 (95% CI [27.74, 32.12], t(186) = 26.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-3.12, 3.14], t(186) = 7.26e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.01], t(186) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.61], t(186) = -0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.85 (95% CI [21.74, 23.95], t(187) = 40.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.91], t(187) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.97], t(187) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.25], t(187) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.90 (95% CI [23.51, 26.30], t(187) = 34.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.59], t(187) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.37], t(187) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [-0.23, 4.10], t(187) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.99 (95% CI [18.29, 21.68], t(187) = 23.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.61], t(187) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.70], t(187) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.47, 3.54], t(187) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.69 (95% CI [9.81, 11.57], t(187) = 23.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.77], t(187) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.37], t(187) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.20], t(187) = -0.28, p = 0.776; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.75 (95% CI [13.41, 16.08], t(187) = 21.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.58], t(187) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.44], t(187) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.94, 1.94], t(187) = -0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.80 (95% CI [20.25, 23.35], t(187) = 27.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.49], t(187) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.63], t(187) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.74, 2.77], t(187) = 0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = 2.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.25 (95% CI [15.18, 17.33], t(187) = 29.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.41], t(187) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.53], t(187) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.54, 3.45], t(187) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.44, 13.79], t(187) = 38.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.88], t(187) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.40], t(187) = -1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.00], t(187) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.59 (95% CI [15.85, 17.33], t(187) = 43.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.81], t(187) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.21], t(187) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.62], t(187) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.58, 13.15], t(187) = 30.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.90], t(187) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.35], t(187) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.95], t(187) = -0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [27.56, 30.36], t(187) = 40.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.46, 3.53], t(187) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.24], t(187) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.18], t(187) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.73 (95% CI [24.50, 28.97], t(187) = 23.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.73, 2.64], t(187) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-1.07, 3.70], t(187) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.84, 95% CI [-7.25, -0.43], t(187) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [12.77, 15.17], t(187) = 22.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.51], t(187) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.42], t(187) = 0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.70], t(187) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.75 (95% CI [14.81, 16.68], t(187) = 32.99, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.98], t(187) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.23], t(187) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.44], t(187) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -7.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.72 (95% CI [27.68, 31.76], t(187) = 28.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.47, 4.35], t(187) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.44], t(187) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-2.35, 3.84], t(187) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.29, 13.01], t(187) = 68.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.45], t(187) = -0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.65], t(187) = 0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.97], t(187) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.70 (95% CI [13.89, 15.51], t(187) = 35.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.42], t(187) = 0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.33], t(187) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.46], t(187) = -0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.41, 14.35], t(187) = 26.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.66], t(187) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.49], t(187) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.81], t(187) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 9.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [26.47, 29.70], t(187) = 34.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.84], t(187) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.72, 2.55], t(187) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-3.20, 2.90], t(187) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [17.97, 19.97], t(187) = 37.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.06], t(187) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.25], t(187) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.09], t(187) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.90, 15.06], t(187) = 48.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.97], t(187) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.86], t(187) = -0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = -6.07e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.75], t(187) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.22, 12.69], t(187) = 31.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.31], t(187) = -1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.55], t(187) = -0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.55], t(187) = 0.41, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.03 (95% CI [9.21, 10.84], t(187) = 24.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.94], t(187) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.13], t(187) = 0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.17], t(187) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.02, 10.75], t(187) = 22.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.78], t(187) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.04], t(187) = -0.02, p = 0.982; Std. beta = -3.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.77], t(187) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.24 (95% CI [7.38, 9.10], t(187) = 18.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.14], t(187) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.73], t(187) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-2.86, 0.06], t(187) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.80, 30.51], t(187) = 23.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-4.12, 2.60], t(187) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.38], t(187) = 0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.18, 95% CI [-6.88, 0.52], t(187) = -1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 604.837 | 614.625 | -299.418 | 598.837 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 606.408 | 625.984 | -297.204 | 594.408 | 4.429 | 3 | 0.219 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 947.518 | 957.306 | -470.759 | 941.518 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 952.112 | 971.688 | -470.056 | 940.112 | 1.406 | 3 | 0.704 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,160.167 | 1,169.956 | -577.084 | 1,154.167 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,159.090 | 1,178.666 | -573.545 | 1,147.090 | 7.077 | 3 | 0.069 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 805.735 | 815.523 | -399.867 | 799.735 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 806.003 | 825.579 | -397.002 | 794.003 | 5.732 | 3 | 0.125 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 975.499 | 985.287 | -484.750 | 969.499 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 973.767 | 993.343 | -480.884 | 961.767 | 7.732 | 3 | 0.052 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 939.705 | 949.493 | -466.852 | 933.705 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 932.410 | 951.986 | -460.205 | 920.410 | 13.295 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 875.558 | 885.346 | -434.779 | 869.558 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 874.792 | 894.368 | -431.396 | 862.792 | 6.766 | 3 | 0.080 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,353.616 | 1,363.389 | -673.808 | 1,347.616 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,357.583 | 1,377.128 | -672.792 | 1,345.583 | 2.033 | 3 | 0.566 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,113.763 | 1,123.551 | -553.881 | 1,107.763 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,118.937 | 1,138.513 | -553.468 | 1,106.937 | 0.826 | 3 | 0.843 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,200.530 | 1,210.318 | -597.265 | 1,194.530 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,202.309 | 1,221.885 | -595.154 | 1,190.309 | 4.221 | 3 | 0.239 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,286.105 | 1,295.893 | -640.052 | 1,280.105 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,289.454 | 1,309.030 | -638.727 | 1,277.454 | 2.651 | 3 | 0.449 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,022.376 | 1,032.164 | -508.188 | 1,016.376 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,027.065 | 1,046.641 | -507.533 | 1,015.065 | 1.311 | 3 | 0.727 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,196.515 | 1,206.303 | -595.257 | 1,190.515 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,201.353 | 1,220.929 | -594.676 | 1,189.353 | 1.162 | 3 | 0.762 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,251.240 | 1,261.028 | -622.620 | 1,245.240 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,256.138 | 1,275.714 | -622.069 | 1,244.138 | 1.102 | 3 | 0.777 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,120.577 | 1,130.365 | -557.289 | 1,114.577 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,119.362 | 1,138.938 | -553.681 | 1,107.362 | 7.215 | 3 | 0.065 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 943.210 | 952.998 | -468.605 | 937.210 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 942.634 | 962.210 | -465.317 | 930.634 | 6.576 | 3 | 0.087 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 972.380 | 982.169 | -483.190 | 966.380 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 974.463 | 994.039 | -481.231 | 962.463 | 3.918 | 3 | 0.270 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 973.481 | 983.269 | -483.740 | 967.481 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 975.238 | 994.814 | -481.619 | 963.238 | 4.243 | 3 | 0.236 |
els | null | 3 | 1,198.102 | 1,207.890 | -596.051 | 1,192.102 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,199.261 | 1,218.837 | -593.631 | 1,187.261 | 4.841 | 3 | 0.184 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,382.419 | 1,392.207 | -688.209 | 1,376.419 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,382.439 | 1,402.016 | -685.220 | 1,370.439 | 5.980 | 3 | 0.113 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,143.214 | 1,153.002 | -568.607 | 1,137.214 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,146.287 | 1,165.863 | -567.143 | 1,134.287 | 2.927 | 3 | 0.403 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,044.487 | 1,054.275 | -519.244 | 1,038.487 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,049.324 | 1,068.900 | -518.662 | 1,037.324 | 1.164 | 3 | 0.762 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,342.667 | 1,352.455 | -668.334 | 1,336.667 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,346.549 | 1,366.125 | -667.275 | 1,334.549 | 2.118 | 3 | 0.548 |
esteem | null | 3 | 713.036 | 722.824 | -353.518 | 707.036 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 718.681 | 738.257 | -353.340 | 706.681 | 0.355 | 3 | 0.949 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,013.347 | 1,023.135 | -503.674 | 1,007.347 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,019.106 | 1,038.682 | -503.553 | 1,007.106 | 0.241 | 3 | 0.971 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,073.402 | 1,083.190 | -533.701 | 1,067.402 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,078.861 | 1,098.437 | -533.430 | 1,066.861 | 0.541 | 3 | 0.910 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,272.095 | 1,281.883 | -633.048 | 1,266.095 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,277.679 | 1,297.255 | -632.839 | 1,265.679 | 0.416 | 3 | 0.937 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,066.461 | 1,076.249 | -530.230 | 1,060.461 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,071.512 | 1,091.088 | -529.756 | 1,059.512 | 0.949 | 3 | 0.814 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 890.560 | 900.348 | -442.280 | 884.560 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 895.017 | 914.593 | -441.508 | 883.017 | 1.543 | 3 | 0.672 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 962.775 | 972.564 | -478.388 | 956.775 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 966.381 | 985.958 | -477.191 | 954.381 | 2.394 | 3 | 0.495 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,002.872 | 1,012.660 | -498.436 | 996.872 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,003.705 | 1,023.281 | -495.852 | 991.705 | 5.167 | 3 | 0.160 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,025.548 | 1,035.336 | -509.774 | 1,019.548 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,028.687 | 1,048.264 | -508.344 | 1,016.687 | 2.861 | 3 | 0.414 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,023.519 | 1,033.307 | -508.760 | 1,017.519 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,025.554 | 1,045.130 | -506.777 | 1,013.554 | 3.965 | 3 | 0.265 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,404.106 | 1,413.894 | -699.053 | 1,398.106 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,405.852 | 1,425.428 | -696.926 | 1,393.852 | 4.254 | 3 | 0.235 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 71 | 3.27 ± 1.15 | 69 | 3.13 ± 1.15 | 0.483 | 0.141 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 27 | 3.33 ± 1.14 | -0.059 | 26 | 3.63 ± 1.14 | -0.507 | 0.338 | -0.308 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 71 | 17.90 ± 2.86 | 69 | 18.04 ± 2.86 | 0.770 | -0.065 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 27 | 17.60 ± 2.73 | 0.139 | 26 | 18.47 ± 2.73 | -0.192 | 0.249 | -0.395 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 71 | 29.83 ± 5.21 | 69 | 30.23 ± 5.21 | 0.650 | -0.137 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 27 | 30.60 ± 4.40 | -0.263 | 26 | 32.05 ± 4.40 | -0.623 | 0.231 | -0.498 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 71 | 11.66 ± 2.09 | 69 | 11.93 ± 2.09 | 0.454 | -0.230 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 27 | 11.08 ± 1.76 | 0.502 | 26 | 12.14 ± 1.76 | -0.180 | 0.030 | -0.912 |
ras_goal | 1st | 71 | 17.14 ± 3.16 | 69 | 17.64 ± 3.16 | 0.354 | -0.257 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 27 | 16.78 ± 2.77 | 0.188 | 26 | 18.74 ± 2.76 | -0.572 | 0.010 | -1.017 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 71 | 12.99 ± 2.93 | 69 | 13.42 ± 2.93 | 0.382 | -0.278 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 27 | 13.38 ± 2.43 | -0.253 | 26 | 14.80 ± 2.42 | -0.884 | 0.035 | -0.909 |
ras_domination | 1st | 71 | 10.17 ± 2.37 | 69 | 9.67 ± 2.37 | 0.211 | 0.293 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 27 | 9.93 ± 2.21 | 0.141 | 26 | 10.77 ± 2.21 | -0.644 | 0.167 | -0.492 |
symptom | 1st | 71 | 29.93 ± 9.41 | 68 | 29.94 ± 9.41 | 0.994 | -0.003 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 27 | 29.81 ± 7.27 | 0.029 | 26 | 28.39 ± 7.28 | 0.377 | 0.478 | 0.345 |
slof_work | 1st | 71 | 22.85 ± 4.76 | 69 | 22.17 ± 4.76 | 0.405 | 0.267 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 27 | 22.54 ± 3.93 | 0.123 | 26 | 22.29 ± 3.93 | -0.046 | 0.820 | 0.098 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 71 | 24.90 ± 6.00 | 69 | 25.51 ± 6.00 | 0.551 | -0.205 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 27 | 23.75 ± 4.83 | 0.388 | 26 | 26.29 ± 4.83 | -0.266 | 0.057 | -0.859 |
satisfaction | 1st | 71 | 19.99 ± 7.27 | 69 | 21.19 ± 7.27 | 0.329 | -0.289 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 27 | 20.59 ± 6.19 | -0.145 | 26 | 22.32 ± 6.19 | -0.273 | 0.309 | -0.417 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 71 | 10.69 ± 3.78 | 69 | 11.20 ± 3.78 | 0.424 | -0.266 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 27 | 11.08 ± 3.08 | -0.201 | 26 | 11.39 ± 3.08 | -0.095 | 0.715 | -0.160 |
mhc_social | 1st | 71 | 14.75 ± 5.75 | 69 | 15.42 ± 5.75 | 0.489 | -0.199 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 27 | 15.48 ± 4.96 | -0.215 | 26 | 15.65 ± 4.95 | -0.068 | 0.900 | -0.051 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 71 | 21.80 ± 6.67 | 69 | 22.09 ± 6.67 | 0.801 | -0.074 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 27 | 22.50 ± 5.68 | -0.183 | 26 | 22.80 ± 5.68 | -0.187 | 0.847 | -0.079 |
resilisnce | 1st | 71 | 16.25 ± 4.63 | 69 | 17.13 ± 4.63 | 0.264 | -0.315 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 27 | 16.39 ± 4.02 | -0.049 | 26 | 18.72 ± 4.02 | -0.572 | 0.036 | -0.839 |
social_provision | 1st | 71 | 13.11 ± 2.90 | 69 | 14.03 ± 2.90 | 0.063 | -0.499 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 27 | 12.59 ± 2.57 | 0.283 | 26 | 14.20 ± 2.57 | -0.094 | 0.024 | -0.876 |
els_value_living | 1st | 71 | 16.59 ± 3.19 | 69 | 17.35 ± 3.19 | 0.163 | -0.402 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 27 | 16.85 ± 2.75 | -0.140 | 26 | 17.88 ± 2.75 | -0.281 | 0.178 | -0.543 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 71 | 12.37 ± 3.39 | 69 | 13.14 ± 3.39 | 0.176 | -0.499 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 27 | 12.91 ± 2.66 | -0.349 | 26 | 13.49 ± 2.66 | -0.224 | 0.426 | -0.374 |
els | 1st | 71 | 28.96 ± 6.01 | 69 | 30.49 ± 6.01 | 0.133 | -0.538 | ||
els | 2nd | 27 | 29.73 ± 4.77 | -0.271 | 26 | 31.36 ± 4.77 | -0.303 | 0.217 | -0.569 |
social_connect | 1st | 71 | 26.73 ± 9.62 | 69 | 26.19 ± 9.62 | 0.738 | 0.117 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 27 | 28.05 ± 7.69 | -0.283 | 26 | 23.66 ± 7.68 | 0.543 | 0.039 | 0.943 |
shs_agency | 1st | 71 | 13.97 ± 5.16 | 69 | 14.77 ± 5.16 | 0.363 | -0.305 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 27 | 14.05 ± 4.19 | -0.030 | 26 | 15.64 ± 4.19 | -0.336 | 0.168 | -0.610 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 71 | 15.75 ± 4.02 | 69 | 16.39 ± 4.02 | 0.344 | -0.320 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 27 | 15.94 ± 3.26 | -0.096 | 26 | 16.55 ± 3.25 | -0.081 | 0.493 | -0.305 |
shs | 1st | 71 | 29.72 ± 8.77 | 69 | 31.16 ± 8.77 | 0.333 | -0.341 | ||
shs | 2nd | 27 | 29.99 ± 7.00 | -0.065 | 26 | 32.18 ± 6.99 | -0.242 | 0.257 | -0.518 |
esteem | 1st | 71 | 12.65 ± 1.55 | 69 | 12.58 ± 1.55 | 0.795 | 0.054 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 27 | 12.70 ± 1.51 | -0.039 | 26 | 12.75 ± 1.51 | -0.133 | 0.905 | -0.039 |
mlq_search | 1st | 71 | 14.70 ± 3.48 | 69 | 14.97 ± 3.48 | 0.651 | -0.113 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 27 | 14.87 ± 3.17 | -0.069 | 26 | 14.93 ± 3.17 | 0.019 | 0.945 | -0.025 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 71 | 13.38 ± 4.19 | 69 | 13.65 ± 4.19 | 0.702 | -0.111 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 27 | 13.63 ± 3.60 | -0.101 | 26 | 13.94 ± 3.60 | -0.118 | 0.752 | -0.127 |
mlq | 1st | 71 | 28.08 ± 6.95 | 69 | 28.62 ± 6.95 | 0.647 | -0.127 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 27 | 28.50 ± 6.08 | -0.098 | 26 | 28.89 ± 6.08 | -0.062 | 0.817 | -0.091 |
empower | 1st | 71 | 18.97 ± 4.29 | 69 | 19.61 ± 4.29 | 0.381 | -0.304 | ||
empower | 2nd | 27 | 19.15 ± 3.44 | -0.085 | 26 | 19.34 ± 3.43 | 0.128 | 0.840 | -0.091 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 71 | 14.48 ± 2.50 | 69 | 14.62 ± 2.50 | 0.733 | -0.080 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 27 | 14.46 ± 2.33 | 0.008 | 26 | 15.10 ± 2.33 | -0.266 | 0.320 | -0.355 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 71 | 11.96 ± 3.16 | 69 | 11.22 ± 3.16 | 0.168 | 0.417 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 27 | 11.61 ± 2.67 | 0.198 | 26 | 11.14 ± 2.67 | 0.045 | 0.524 | 0.264 |
sss_affective | 1st | 71 | 10.03 ± 3.50 | 69 | 9.81 ± 3.50 | 0.715 | 0.113 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 27 | 10.19 ± 2.93 | -0.084 | 26 | 8.76 ± 2.93 | 0.551 | 0.077 | 0.748 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 71 | 9.89 ± 3.72 | 69 | 9.43 ± 3.72 | 0.473 | 0.218 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 27 | 9.88 ± 3.14 | 0.006 | 26 | 8.69 ± 3.13 | 0.358 | 0.172 | 0.570 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 71 | 8.24 ± 3.71 | 69 | 8.14 ± 3.71 | 0.880 | 0.047 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 27 | 8.94 ± 3.10 | -0.350 | 26 | 7.45 ± 3.10 | 0.344 | 0.081 | 0.741 |
sss | 1st | 71 | 28.15 ± 10.14 | 69 | 27.39 ± 10.14 | 0.657 | 0.151 | ||
sss | 2nd | 27 | 28.95 ± 8.20 | -0.157 | 26 | 25.01 ± 8.19 | 0.471 | 0.082 | 0.779 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(181.36) = -0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.25)
2st
t(177.70) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.92)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(174.31) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.10)
2st
t(170.36) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.35)
ras_confidence
1st
t(156.31) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.14)
2st
t(170.45) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.93 to 3.84)
ras_willingness
1st
t(155.79) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.96)
2st
t(171.04) = 2.18, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.01)
ras_goal
1st
t(160.31) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.55)
2st
t(167.25) = 2.59, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.47 to 3.47)
ras_reliance
1st
t(154.44) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.41)
2st
t(172.78) = 2.13, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.73)
ras_domination
1st
t(170.20) = -1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.29)
2st
t(167.64) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.04)
symptom
1st
t(147.68) = 0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-3.14 to 3.17)
2st
t(182.70) = -0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-5.37 to 2.53)
slof_work
1st
t(154.10) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.26 to 0.92)
2st
t(173.27) = -0.23, p = 0.820, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.88)
slof_relationship
1st
t(151.85) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.61)
2st
t(176.96) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.08 to 5.16)
satisfaction
1st
t(157.23) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.63)
2st
t(169.50) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.62 to 5.09)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(152.85) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.78)
2st
t(175.21) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.98)
mhc_social
1st
t(158.62) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.59)
2st
t(168.32) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.86)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(157.25) = 0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.51)
2st
t(169.48) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.78 to 3.38)
resilisnce
1st
t(159.39) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.42)
2st
t(167.79) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.15 to 4.51)
social_provision
1st
t(162.14) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.88)
2st
t(166.53) = 2.28, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.00)
els_value_living
1st
t(158.48) = 1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.82)
2st
t(168.42) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.51)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(149.92) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.91)
2st
t(180.64) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.03)
els
1st
t(150.75) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.54)
2st
t(179.00) = 1.24, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.96 to 4.21)
social_connect
1st
t(151.25) = -0.33, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.76 to 2.67)
2st
t(178.05) = -2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-8.55 to -0.22)
shs_agency
1st
t(152.65) = 0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.52)
2st
t(175.56) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.68 to 3.87)
shs_pathway
1st
t(152.38) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.99)
2st
t(176.01) = 0.69, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.38)
shs
1st
t(151.13) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.49 to 4.37)
2st
t(178.28) = 1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.61 to 5.98)
esteem
1st
t(178.04) = -0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.45)
2st
t(173.85) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.87)
mlq_search
1st
t(165.93) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.43)
2st
t(166.26) = 0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.66 to 1.78)
mlq_presence
1st
t(158.32) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.67)
2st
t(168.55) = 0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.27)
mlq
1st
t(160.39) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.86)
2st
t(167.21) = 0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.91 to 3.68)
empower
1st
t(151.55) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.07)
2st
t(177.49) = 0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.06)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(169.76) = 0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.98)
2st
t(167.43) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.90)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(156.41) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.32)
2st
t(170.33) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.98)
sss_affective
1st
t(155.33) = -0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.95)
2st
t(171.60) = -1.78, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.02 to 0.16)
sss_behavior
1st
t(156.13) = -0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.79)
2st
t(170.64) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.52)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(155.17) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.14)
2st
t(171.81) = -1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-3.17 to 0.19)
sss
1st
t(152.19) = -0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-4.15 to 2.62)
2st
t(176.35) = -1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-8.38 to 0.50)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(92.71) = 2.06, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.02 to 0.97)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(81.98) = 0.76, p = 0.899, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.53)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(63.92) = 2.35, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.36)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(63.50) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.82)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(67.30) = 2.18, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.12)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(62.43) = 3.32, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.55 to 2.21)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(77.04) = 2.52, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.98)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(58.04) = -1.40, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.67)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(62.16) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.45)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(60.44) = 0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.37)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(64.67) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.06 to 3.33)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(61.20) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.21)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(65.84) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.55 to 2.01)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(64.69) = 0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.73)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(66.49) = 2.18, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.13 to 3.05)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(68.93) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.13)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(65.72) = 1.07, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.52)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(59.01) = 0.83, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.19)
els
1st vs 2st
t(59.63) = 1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.40)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.99) = -2.03, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-5.02 to -0.03)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(61.04) = 1.26, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.27)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(60.84) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.24)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(59.90) = 0.90, p = 0.742, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.28)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(87.18) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.79)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(72.54) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.17)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(65.58) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.58)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(67.36) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.49)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(60.22) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.85)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(76.55) = 1.04, p = 0.602, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.39)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(64.01) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.86)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(63.13) = -2.08, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.07 to -0.04)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(63.78) = -1.35, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.35)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(63.00) = -1.30, p = 0.399, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.38)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(60.70) = -1.76, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.09 to 0.32)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(92.39) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.53)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(81.75) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.78)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(63.84) = 1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.28)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(63.42) = -1.93, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.02)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(67.19) = -0.73, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.63)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(62.36) = 0.97, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.21)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(76.85) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.62)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(58.07) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.06)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(62.09) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.00)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(60.38) = -1.48, p = 0.289, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.41)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(64.58) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.55 to 2.76)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(61.14) = 0.77, p = 0.894, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.40)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(65.74) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.48)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(64.60) = 0.70, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.67)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(66.39) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.57)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(68.81) = -1.10, p = 0.548, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.42)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(65.62) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.23)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(58.97) = 1.32, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.37)
els
1st vs 2st
t(59.57) = 1.03, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.28)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(59.94) = 1.08, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.13 to 3.76)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(60.98) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.45)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(60.78) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.25)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(59.85) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.50)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(86.90) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.66)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(72.39) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.36)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(65.48) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.52)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(67.25) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.60)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(60.16) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.28)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(76.37) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.88)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(63.92) = -0.76, p = 0.897, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.57)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(63.06) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.16)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(63.70) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.06)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(62.93) = 1.34, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.76)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(60.64) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.45)